5 ms·

how else would you prefer to frame America footing a bill for a benefit to everyone? we benefited, sure, but everyone else received the same benefit for zero co

by _bin_ 2y ago

how else would you prefer to frame America footing a bill for a benefit to everyone? we benefited, sure, but everyone else received the same benefit for zero cost. we spend a lot of our GDP on healthcare. part of this is due to other countries paying much less for new developments than we do. when you amortize your R&D costs across a small population instead of your whole market, that will mean charging everyone in that small population much more. my issue isn't especially with the funding so much as it is with ensuring the rest of the world pays what they owe. America has functioned since WWII as a large charity project for those less capable of running a great nation (namely, everyone). i am pretty sick of seeing my tax bill every year and knowing that. so too are many, many others. i am pretty comfortable at a fundamental level with public support for medical research. i am not comfortable with failing to protect the results of that research and ensuring that if anyone outside the borders of our country wants a scrap of benefit from those, we enforce payment for that benefit.

ks2048 2y ago
Our insane spending on health care is independent from funding of scientific research, and only a small amount of your tax funds it (again - different than spending on "healthcare"). Being that country that makes scientific breakthroughs is a good thing. Name one of these "free loading" countries out there is in better shape because they don't do science and just sit back reap the benefits?
hobs 2y ago
In trying to get "everyone to pay what they owe" the self own is worth far more than what they would pay. Science doesn't really care about borders and making sure its a winner take all mentality will mean you just wont be included in the game.
mindslight 2y ago
Have you tried calculating what your tax bill is going to be when the US can no longer run a deficit after USD is no longer the world reserve currency? Funding scientific research isn't a zero-sum "charity project", rather it's spending some of the proceeds from our demurrage currency on maintaining the leadership position that makes it still be considered a good store of value.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  Whether the US can or cannot run a deficit has nothing to do with the dollar being a reserve currency. It being a reserve currency means it probably will run a deficit but that's just a reflection of foreigners wanting to save US dollars, which is true for many country's currency. The deficit is just a reflection of the sectoral balances[1], which governments don't realistically influence through normal policy. They obviously can change them, but it generally results in significant undesirable outcomes. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    US will have to prove that these big changes are a sogn towards more stability, for others to keep saving in USD. Gold markets are pretty insane nowadays, which makes me think of my own savings.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Sure, "deficit" is crappy political term that mostly serves as a martingale and rallying cry for kayfabe austerity politics. Forgive me for stooping. I'm really talking about monetary creation/inflation - the part of the budget deficit that is new "loans" from another branch of government (Federal Reserve), plus "loans" from the Federal Reserve into the financial industry to do things like grow the housing bubble. The belief that USD will continue to be redeemable for best in class future goods (technological widgets, military hardware, trade and military alliances, etc) combined with the stickiness of transaction costs (especially at nation-state scale) is what allows that ongoing monetary inflation without commensurate price inflation.
    - hgomersall 2y ago
      There's certainly a reasonable concern about what happens when China stops accepting IOUs in return for piles of actual stuff. That doesn't influence though the ability of the US to create what it needs, which is just a function of what resources it can draw on. As Keynes pointed out, anything we can actually do, we can afford. I'm not actually American, but you get the gist. I've taken the liberty of posting the full passage here since it's so good: For some weeks at this hour you have enjoyed the day-dreams of planning. But what about the nightmare of finance? I am sure there have been many listeners who have been muttering: “That’s all very well, but how is it to be paid for?” Let me begin by telling you how I tried to answer an eminent architect who pushed on one side all the grandiose plans to rebuild London with the phrase: “Where’s the money to come from?” “The money?” I said. “But surely, Sir John, you don’t build houses with money? Do you mean that there won’t be enough bricks and mortar and steel and cement?” “Oh no”, he replied, “of course there will be plenty of all that”. “Do you mean”, I went on, “that there won’t be enough labour? For what will the builders be doing if they are not building houses?” “Oh no, that’s all right”, he agreed. “Then there is only one conclusion. You must be meaning, Sir John, that there won’t be enough architects”. But there I was trespassing on the boundaries of politeness. So I hurried to add: “Well, if there are bricks and mortar and steel and concrete and labour and architects, why not assemble all this good material into houses?” But he was, I fear, quite unconvinced. “What I want to know”, he repeated, “is where the money is coming from”. To answer that would have got him and me into deeper water than I cared for, so I replied rather shabbily: “The same place it is coming from now”. He might have countered (but he didn’t): “Of course I know that money is not the slightest use whatever. But, all the same, my dear sir, you will find it a devil of a business not to have any …” Had I given him a good and convincing answer by saying that we build houses with bricks and mortar, not with money? Or was I only teasing him? … For one thing, he was making the very usual confusion between the problem of finance for an individual and the problem for the community as a whole … The first task is to make sure that there is enough demand to provide employment for everyone. The second task is to prevent a demand in excess of the physical possibilities of supply, which is the proper meaning of inflation. For the physical possibilities of supply are very far from unlimited. Our building programme must be properly proportioned to the resources which are left after we have met our daily needs and have produced enough exports to pay for what we require to import from overseas … Where we are using up resources, do not let us submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income, with no other denominator of values but this. I should like to see that war memorials of this tragic struggle take the shape of an enrichment of the civic life of every great centre of population … Assuredly we can afford this and much more. Anything we can actually do we can afford. Once done, it is there. Nothing can take it from us.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
> America has functioned since WWII as a large charity project for those less capable of running a great nation (namely, everyone). By what measure? Life expectancy? Happiness? Wealth? We have the highest economic stratification of almost any nation in the developed world, by a longshot. We're the only developed nation that does not provide universal healthcare, does not guarantee sick time and does not guarantee parental leave. We have the most barriers to unionization of any developed nation We have the highest number of incarcerated people, by both total number and percentage of our population, of any developed nation. We're also among the worst countries in terms of alignment between what the populace wants for policies and what they get from their elected representatives, so we're failing pretty hard at the whole "democracy" thing, too. > i am pretty sick of seeing my tax bill every year and knowing that Great news! I have the cure. All you need to do is google "federal budget percent foreign aid" and you'll feel so much better. It's just one percent of the federal budget. Since we're on the subject of "paying more than we get back" and our tax bills...what state do you live in, dear commenter who feels ripped off by his tax bill?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _bin_ 2y ago
  “just” one percent is quite a lot given how many things the feds do. i’ll take the hundreds of dollars back on my taxes over paying for transsexual operas in south america or food for people who chant “death to America” you are, of course, correct, we urgently must also end social security and medicare, as they represent large proportions of the budget.
BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> we spend a lot of our GDP on healthcare. part of this is due to other countries paying much less for new developments than we do. ... > my issue isn't especially with the funding so much as it is with ensuring the rest of the world pays what they owe. America has functioned since WWII as a large charity project for those less capable of running a great nation (namely, everyone). i am pretty sick of seeing my tax bill every year and knowing that. so too are many, many others. Man, spoken like a true Brexit voter - absolutely sure that they're tired of how the EU is just leaching off the backs of the unappreciated UK. Placing the blame on those foreigners for all the problems at home, and cutting them off will show them how much they needed us all along. Some storylines are just too tantalizing to looking into the details of. They must be correct because they feel correct to me. As the UK so bluntly and drastically learned, getting suckered by those storylines sucks when reality comes calling.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  the only thing this suggests that brexit was the wrong way to extract adequate value from the leech nations of europe. it doesn’t negate the basic point that the EU consists of many countries relying on net contributions from only a few. britain’s point wasn’t wrong. thankfully, America is a much larger and more important nation so we should be able to do a better job of it.

by _bin_ 2y ago

ks2048 2y ago

Our insane spending on health care is independent from funding of scientific research, and only a small amount of your tax funds it (again - different than spending on "healthcare"). Being that country that makes scientific breakthroughs is a good thing. Name one of these "free loading" countries out there is in better shape because they don't do science and just sit back reap the benefits?

hobs 2y ago

In trying to get "everyone to pay what they owe" the self own is worth far more than what they would pay. Science doesn't really care about borders and making sure its a winner take all mentality will mean you just wont be included in the game.

mindslight 2y ago

Have you tried calculating what your tax bill is going to be when the US can no longer run a deficit after USD is no longer the world reserve currency? Funding scientific research isn't a zero-sum "charity project", rather it's spending some of the proceeds from our demurrage currency on maintaining the leadership position that makes it still be considered a good store of value.

hgomersall 2y ago
Whether the US can or cannot run a deficit has nothing to do with the dollar being a reserve currency. It being a reserve currency means it probably will run a deficit but that's just a reflection of foreigners wanting to save US dollars, which is true for many country's currency. The deficit is just a reflection of the sectoral balances[1], which governments don't realistically influence through normal policy. They obviously can change them, but it generally results in significant undesirable outcomes. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  US will have to prove that these big changes are a sogn towards more stability, for others to keep saving in USD. Gold markets are pretty insane nowadays, which makes me think of my own savings.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Sure, "deficit" is crappy political term that mostly serves as a martingale and rallying cry for kayfabe austerity politics. Forgive me for stooping. I'm really talking about monetary creation/inflation - the part of the budget deficit that is new "loans" from another branch of government (Federal Reserve), plus "loans" from the Federal Reserve into the financial industry to do things like grow the housing bubble. The belief that USD will continue to be redeemable for best in class future goods (technological widgets, military hardware, trade and military alliances, etc) combined with the stickiness of transaction costs (especially at nation-state scale) is what allows that ongoing monetary inflation without commensurate price inflation.
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    There's certainly a reasonable concern about what happens when China stops accepting IOUs in return for piles of actual stuff. That doesn't influence though the ability of the US to create what it needs, which is just a function of what resources it can draw on. As Keynes pointed out, anything we can actually do, we can afford. I'm not actually American, but you get the gist. I've taken the liberty of posting the full passage here since it's so good: For some weeks at this hour you have enjoyed the day-dreams of planning. But what about the nightmare of finance? I am sure there have been many listeners who have been muttering: “That’s all very well, but how is it to be paid for?” Let me begin by telling you how I tried to answer an eminent architect who pushed on one side all the grandiose plans to rebuild London with the phrase: “Where’s the money to come from?” “The money?” I said. “But surely, Sir John, you don’t build houses with money? Do you mean that there won’t be enough bricks and mortar and steel and cement?” “Oh no”, he replied, “of course there will be plenty of all that”. “Do you mean”, I went on, “that there won’t be enough labour? For what will the builders be doing if they are not building houses?” “Oh no, that’s all right”, he agreed. “Then there is only one conclusion. You must be meaning, Sir John, that there won’t be enough architects”. But there I was trespassing on the boundaries of politeness. So I hurried to add: “Well, if there are bricks and mortar and steel and concrete and labour and architects, why not assemble all this good material into houses?” But he was, I fear, quite unconvinced. “What I want to know”, he repeated, “is where the money is coming from”. To answer that would have got him and me into deeper water than I cared for, so I replied rather shabbily: “The same place it is coming from now”. He might have countered (but he didn’t): “Of course I know that money is not the slightest use whatever. But, all the same, my dear sir, you will find it a devil of a business not to have any …” Had I given him a good and convincing answer by saying that we build houses with bricks and mortar, not with money? Or was I only teasing him? … For one thing, he was making the very usual confusion between the problem of finance for an individual and the problem for the community as a whole … The first task is to make sure that there is enough demand to provide employment for everyone. The second task is to prevent a demand in excess of the physical possibilities of supply, which is the proper meaning of inflation. For the physical possibilities of supply are very far from unlimited. Our building programme must be properly proportioned to the resources which are left after we have met our daily needs and have produced enough exports to pay for what we require to import from overseas … Where we are using up resources, do not let us submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income, with no other denominator of values but this. I should like to see that war memorials of this tragic struggle take the shape of an enrichment of the civic life of every great centre of population … Assuredly we can afford this and much more. Anything we can actually do we can afford. Once done, it is there. Nothing can take it from us.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

> America has functioned since WWII as a large charity project for those less capable of running a great nation (namely, everyone). By what measure? Life expectancy? Happiness? Wealth? We have the highest economic stratification of almost any nation in the developed world, by a longshot. We're the only developed nation that does not provide universal healthcare, does not guarantee sick time and does not guarantee parental leave. We have the most barriers to unionization of any developed nation We have the highest number of incarcerated people, by both total number and percentage of our population, of any developed nation. We're also among the worst countries in terms of alignment between what the populace wants for policies and what they get from their elected representatives, so we're failing pretty hard at the whole "democracy" thing, too. > i am pretty sick of seeing my tax bill every year and knowing that Great news! I have the cure. All you need to do is google "federal budget percent foreign aid" and you'll feel so much better. It's just one percent of the federal budget. Since we're on the subject of "paying more than we get back" and our tax bills...what state do you live in, dear commenter who feels ripped off by his tax bill?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_bin_ 2y ago
“just” one percent is quite a lot given how many things the feds do. i’ll take the hundreds of dollars back on my taxes over paying for transsexual operas in south america or food for people who chant “death to America” you are, of course, correct, we urgently must also end social security and medicare, as they represent large proportions of the budget.

BoiledCabbage 2y ago

> we spend a lot of our GDP on healthcare. part of this is due to other countries paying much less for new developments than we do. ... > my issue isn't especially with the funding so much as it is with ensuring the rest of the world pays what they owe. America has functioned since WWII as a large charity project for those less capable of running a great nation (namely, everyone). i am pretty sick of seeing my tax bill every year and knowing that. so too are many, many others. Man, spoken like a true Brexit voter - absolutely sure that they're tired of how the EU is just leaching off the backs of the unappreciated UK. Placing the blame on those foreigners for all the problems at home, and cutting them off will show them how much they needed us all along. Some storylines are just too tantalizing to looking into the details of. They must be correct because they feel correct to me. As the UK so bluntly and drastically learned, getting suckered by those storylines sucks when reality comes calling.

_bin_ 2y ago
the only thing this suggests that brexit was the wrong way to extract adequate value from the leech nations of europe. it doesn’t negate the basic point that the EU consists of many countries relying on net contributions from only a few. britain’s point wasn’t wrong. thankfully, America is a much larger and more important nation so we should be able to do a better job of it.